Council house? Not if you are on over £100k pa

ukcarper

I’m not sure how you get people to move out, as they will have signed up for a lifetime tenancy and I expect there are more married couples whose children have left home in three bed houses than 80 year old women. The other thing is that the attitude towards social housing was completely different in the 60 and 70s.

vivatifosi

So what's the answer jelly? In my mind they need to stop RTB first, because if they continue it, every time they make an announcement more houses will be withdrawn from the already low stock. They they should address people who shouldn't have any kind of access to social housing such as those on £100k pa. Then they should look at the length of tenancies, so the expectation is not to have a house for life, less still the same house for life. Then they should look at under occupation and getting people into the right accommodation, starting with those who have been in properties for the shortest period of time. Certainly where I live, they would actually need to build more stock or convert stock to enable this as there are more 3 bed properties than 1 or 2. FWIW I also don't think that there should be very big council houses either, as families should control family size or buy themselves a bigger house.

lemonjelly

If they signed up to a lifetime tenancy, why can that tenancy not be transferred to an alternative property, which fully meets their needs?

What they actually signed up for, is a secure tenancy. However since the time they signed that tenancy, their circumstances may well have changed so much, that they no longer meet the criteria for social housing.

ukcarper

lemonjelly wrote: »

If they signed up to a lifetime tenancy, why can that tenancy not be transferred to an alternative property, which fully meets their needs?

What they actually signed up for, is a secure tenancy. However since the time they signed that tenancy, their circumstances may well have changed so much, that they no longer meet the criteria for social housing.

Is that the case legally?

lemonjelly

ukcarper wrote: »

Is that the case legally?

In my opinion, it is what I feel would be a fair solution.

Not necessarily popular mind.

Most tenancy agreements will name the address of the property let. It forms part of the contract with the housing provider (there will be wider terms, expectations, requirements etc).

To me, it seems reasonable that a HA/LA could continue to provide a person/household with accommodation, however if they are under-occupying, transfer the occupant to alternative accommodation which meets their needs and requirements and will not be under occupied.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

I mean the sort of property my mother is in. How keen woukld you be to move from a 3 bed house into a 1 bed flat in a tower block.

I wouldn't be keen. I don't think anybody would.

I also accept that the emotional argument will always be a much larger concern than the fact that houses are needed and there is massive underoccupancy going on.

I asked because I actually have experience of two people being asked to downsize. They are not family, but know them very well.

One is a single man living in a 4 bed house. Children have left the house, and have been gone now for approx 6 years. Has been asked to downsize to a 2 bed, but refuses. He will move and has no objections, but basically he believes he can get a significant cash sum to move. I doubt he will ever move though unless forced, and I doubt he will get the cash sum.

The other is his mother. Lives roughly half a mile down the road. 3 bed house, has been there on her own, must be about 15 or so years. Remember the unfortunate death of her husband when I was at school. Has been asked to downsize (don't know what to, but based on above, I'd guess 2 bed), refuses. I doubt she would move regardless of any cash sum, regardless of any other accomodation, she simply does not want to.

Thats 7 bedrooms and 2 houses between 2 people.

Now, the best bit. One of their children...my friend, lives in a tiny 2 bed, with 2 children and his wife. I struggle in mine for room. His is even smaller. They are on the council waiting list, but don't have a chance, and this is private rental, with a slight (though don't know the amount) bit of government help. He'd happily do a swap with his parent / grandparent....they won't.

How does this make any sense? Even forgetting the fact we are subsidising these people to live in these homes they would never be able to afford for a minute, can anyone state it makes any sense?

ukcarper

lemonjelly wrote: »

In my opinion, it is what I feel would be a fair solution.

Not necessarily popular mind.

Most tenancy agreements will name the address of the property let. It forms part of the contract with the housing provider (there will be wider terms, expectations, requirements etc).

To me, it seems reasonable that a HA/LA could continue to provide a person/household with accommodation, however if they are under-occupying, transfer the occupant to alternative accommodation which meets their needs and requirements and will not be under occupied.

As long as the alternative accommodation is suitable it sounds reasonable to me but as things stand now could they legally do it.

lemonjelly

vivatifosi wrote: »

So what's the answer jelly? In my mind they need to stop RTB first, because if they continue it, every time they make an announcement more houses will be withdrawn from the already low stock. They they should address people who shouldn't have any kind of access to social housing such as those on £100k pa. Then they should look at the length of tenancies, so the expectation is not to have a house for life, less still the same house for life. Then they should look at under occupation and getting people into the right accommodation, starting with those who have been in properties for the shortest period of time. Certainly where I live, they would actually need to build more stock or convert stock to enable this as there are more 3 bed properties than 1 or 2. FWIW I also don't think that there should be very big council houses either, as families should control family size or buy themselves a bigger house.

All of the above, plus the response I've given to ukcarper.

The biggest crime (imo) is that all the proceeds from RTB was not returned into the social housing market. The money was diverted into other government pots. imo it should have been re-invested in social housing for the UK. Not one penny was re-invested in any way, and no properties were built to replace what was being shifted out of social housing.

IMO this has lead to huge knock on social implications which cause large costs on the public purse. In reality, that requires a thread of its own.

None of the issues are going to be popular, and in the current environment I cannot see the condems doing anything other than going for the easy headline (as highlighted by this thread, and also notions such as Osbournes tax on the fuel companies which appears to be backfiring big style.)

I'd prefer to see under occupation addressed (as I feel this would have a knock on effect on the percieved tenancy for life). I feel that building more properties is essential after years of under investment/money & stock being taken out of the system.

RTB itself isn't a huge problem. What has happened to the proceeds is the true crime.

lemonjelly

ukcarper wrote: »

As long as the alternative accommodation is suitable it sounds reasonable to me but as things stand now could they legally do it.

No. Not at this time.

lostinrates

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I wouldn't be keen. I don't think anybody would.

I also accept that the emotional argument will always be a much larger concern than the fact that houses are needed and there is massive underoccupancy going on.

I asked because I actually have experience of two people being asked to downsize. They are not family, but know them very well.

One is a single man living in a 4 bed house. Children have left the house, and have been gone now for approx 6 years. Has been asked to downsize to a 2 bed, but refuses. He will move and has no objections, but basically he believes he can get a significant cash sum to move. I doubt he will ever move though unless forced, and I doubt he will get the cash sum.

The other is his mother. Lives roughly half a mile down the road. 3 bed house, has been there on her own, must be about 15 or so years. Remember the unfortunate death of her husband when I was at school. Has been asked to downsize (don't know what to, but based on above, I'd guess 2 bed), refuses. I doubt she would move regardless of any cash sum, regardless of any other accomodation, she simply does not want to.

Thats 7 bedrooms and 2 houses between 2 people.

Now, the best bit. One of their children...my friend, lives in a tiny 2 bed, with 2 children and his wife. I struggle in mine for room. His is even smaller. They are on the council waiting list, but don't have a chance, and this is private rental, with a slight (though don't know the amount) bit of government help. He'd happily do a swap with his parent / grandparent....they won't.

How does this make any sense? Even forgetting the fact we are subsidising these people to live in these homes they would never be able to afford for a minute, can anyone state it makes any sense?

So sad. The other thing that springs to mind, though it would mean loss of independance, is that the son could in the future provide some care role/companionship to his other before/after work if living with her. (if not now if she is still spry then in the future.)